# Gender Neutral Pronouns



## Shiny Grimer (Sep 30, 2008)

What's your opinion on gender neutral pronouns?

I personally like the idea of GNP. Some people say that it's feminist mind control or something, but I don't like the idea that man is the all-inclusive category and woman is just a subset of man. In addition, sometimes I want to refer to both genders at the same time, but not in the plural.
_A teacher must teach _____ student._

A teacher must teach 'their' student? Ugh. That's probably grammatically incorrect. A teacher must teach his student. Male teacher. A teacher must teach her student. Female teacher. A teacher must teach one's student. One? That just doesn't sound like it's referring to the teacher.

This is a case in which I would use a GNP. The only ones I would use are hu and spivak pronouns.

So, what do you use, what would you use, and what do you think?


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 30, 2008)

Regarding the "men is an all-inclusive category" debate, these days I see most people use "she" in situations where gender is either unknown or irrelevant (i.e. "The inquisitive reader would think to herself why I'm rambling on about canaries for fifteen pages.") Personally, I'm more fond of "one", and rearranging the sentance to work around it (i.e. "One would wonder why I'm rambling on about canaries for fifteen pages."), or if neccessary, "she".

If those invented GNPs catch on in language, then I'll probably use them. Nevertheless, while "one" and "she" are still the dominant pseudo-GNPs, I will use them to avoid confusion.

And as for my opinion? English is a poorly-constructed language that lacks several advantages of other languages. A proper GNP would be quite helpful, but creating one artificially seems a little... bland, somehow. It also reeks of the irritating waves of political correctness that have been slowly seeping into the mainstream, determined to attack perfectly harmless terminology that has little to no relation to actual discrimination.


----------



## Harlequin (Sep 30, 2008)

I don't use she. I find that just as "bad" as using "he."


----------



## Tailsy (Sep 30, 2008)

'They enjoys' is never grammatically correct. That poll is invalid as one of the options simply _doesn't work_.

I usually just use 'he'. I don't even /care/. D:


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 30, 2008)

> I don't use she. I find that just as "bad" as using "he."


Well, it makes more sense. To me, "she" has always had the connotation that the "s" was optional to the reader.

In any case, _who cares_? It's just a grammatical quirk that happens to favour one gender depending on which method you choose. If that's the kind of discrimination that you consider serious enough to warrant more than a few moments' thought, then you really need to pick your battles better.


----------



## Murkrow (Sep 30, 2008)

I just use 'they'.

'They enjoy running'


----------



## Music Dragon (Sep 30, 2008)

Tailsy said:


> 'They enjoys' is never grammatically incorrect. That poll is invalid as one of the options simply _doesn't work_.


You mean "correct", not "incorrect", right? Otherwise there's something seriously wrong with me.



Harlequin said:


> I don't use she. I find that just as "bad" as using "he."


In Swedish, the word "human" is, in certain contexts, a feminine word (although very few people actually care). So you could argue that "she" could refer to any human being, not necessarily a male!

... But, well, that's only in Sweden. And even then it's kind of far-fetched.

Aww.

Even so! I don't see why the pronoun you use should matter. It's not like you're being sexist just because you're using "he" instead of a gender-neutral pronoun; that would be like saying that anyone who wears white instead of black is racist. The important thing isn't what pronoun you're using, the important thing is that people can easily understand what you're saying.


----------



## Time Psyduck (Sep 30, 2008)

I recall that New Scientist had an artical about how 'yo' was being used by people in this situation.

Not that I've heard it used, however.

The problem is likley that in order to get a point across you need to use words everyone can understan, this making it difficult for new words to gain usage.


----------



## Cryssie (Sep 30, 2008)

I currently lean towards singular they/their. Yeah, it can make wording a bit more awkward and even ambiguous at times, but that's English for you.

These invented GNPs seem like a good idea in theory, but whenever I encounter them in the context of a sentence, I find it a bit distracting, and I'm pretty sure that most people I know (offline, at least) would have to stop and ask me what I meant by "eirself" exactly. Singular they/their/whatever just sounds so much more natural as things stand. It'd take a conscious effort to make the switch, and then - ironically, I think - it would probably throw a momentary spanner into the clarity of the conversation whenever I used it.

If there was one set of gender-neutral pronouns in common enough usage that they didn't sound so odd and jarring to me any more (Spivak seems to be getting there), I'd probably happily start using them.

Really, though, all this over the little topic of gender. Equality is great and all, but this is just a matter of semantics, isn't it?

EDIT: Thought I'd mention that the _reason_ I still use singular they and such and not always him or her isn't because I find him/her sexist, I just find singular they more natural when the gender in question isn't known. Habit, I suppose. I can't remember a time when I've ever had to clarify "oh, I mean just one person, not several," so why not?


----------



## Dannichu (Sep 30, 2008)

She, or, more often, s/he.


----------



## Murkrow (Sep 30, 2008)

Does anyone ever use 'it'?


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

Spivak.


----------



## Murkrow (Sep 30, 2008)

Isn't Spivak generally just they/their/them without the th?

It's so much easier just to say...
they/them/their/etc.


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

But that is ambiguous. Also the reason I don't use the male form; I'm not particularly fond of ambiguity in languages. In German, the pronoun "sie" is both second person feminine, second person plural, and second person polite form. "Ihr" is third person plural and the possessive form of all the above. It gets confusing.

Thus I think it makes a lot of sense for a language to have a set of gendered pronouns, a set of ungendered pronouns, and a set of gender-neutral pronouns.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 30, 2008)

original spivak, which is for some reason not in this poll: e enjoys running in the breeze


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

Edited the poll so it makes a little more sense.


----------



## Arylett Charnoa (Sep 30, 2008)

They. If I don't know a person's gender, I'll call them they. Their. Them. 

They enjoy running in the breeze.


----------



## Keltena (Sep 30, 2008)

I say 'they.'


----------



## spaekle (Sep 30, 2008)

Lately I've been trying to start using Spivak, but I use 'they' quite a bit too.

I'm personally all for a gender-neutral pronoun. I really hate how a person's sex/gender has to be brought into every little thing, even when you're just talking about something they did the other day. :\


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

Ruby said:


> Though it's regrettable that English has no distinct gender-neutral pronoun, the use of Spivak pronouns seems like needless vigilantism at the cost of good writing.


Why at the cost of good writing?



> opal, why didn't you remove 'One' from the poll?


Because someone had voted for it and I didn't want to influence the poll results.


----------



## surskitty (Sep 30, 2008)

Spivak or singular they.  :/


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 30, 2008)

Because relatively few people would understand what "e/ey" means. Or rather, they'd probably work out the meaning and think that you were either insane or an idiot for using a seemingly made-up word for no given reason.


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

goldenquagsire said:


> Because relatively few people would understand what "e/ey" means. Or rather, they'd probably work out the meaning and think that you were either insane or an idiot for using a seemingly made-up word for no given reason.


I fail to see how this is different from using any other word the reader doesn't know. Besides, people will assume that any word you use _does_ exist because you used it. So they'll say "oh, this is a pronoun? maybe I should look it up!" and voila, mission accomplished.


----------



## Zeph (Sep 30, 2008)

Ehm... I'd normally say them/they, but every now and then, he/she/it (Everyone seems to be forgetting hermaphrodites). Or, to be very short, s/he or (s)he.


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

> (Everyone seems to be forgetting hermaphrodites)


Except you're not meant to use "it" for hermaphrodites (excuse me, intersexual persons).


----------



## Zeph (Sep 30, 2008)

opaltiger said:


> Except you're not meant to use "it" for hermaphrodites (excuse me, intersexual persons).


Ah. So what _are_ you meant to use?


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 30, 2008)

> I fail to see how this is different from using any other word the reader doesn't know. Besides, people will assume that any word you use does exist because you used it. So they'll say "oh, this is a pronoun? maybe I should look it up!" and voila, mission accomplished.


That would apply for literature, or perhaps a feature on the subject of pronouns. However, for other purposes, it would make things easier just to use the accepted standard.

I could replace all instances of "I" in, say, an article about dogs, with "Ioe" (pretending for a moment that I and Ioe are in the same situation as he and e). People could still work out the meaning eventually, or look it up and find out what I'm talking about. Thing is, they wouldn't take me at all seriously after that point.


----------



## opaltiger (Sep 30, 2008)

Zephyrous Castform said:


> Ah. So what _are_ you meant to use?


I think people tend to use zhi/hir and various other spellings.



> However, for other purposes, it would make things easier just to use the accepted standard.


There is no accepted standard.



> I could replace all instances of "I" in, say, an article about dogs, with "Ioe" (pretending for a moment that I and Ioe are in the same situation as he and e). People could still work out the meaning eventually, or look it up and find out what I'm talking about. Thing is, they wouldn't take me at all seriously after that point.


False analogy. There is a need for gender-neutral pronouns in English; there is no need for an alternate first person singular pronoun.


----------



## Cryssie (Sep 30, 2008)

opaltiger said:


> I fail to see how this is different from using any other word the reader doesn't know.


Well, it's not every day a new set of _pronouns_ comes along. Adjectives and nouns, sure; there are zillions of those and I commonly look to dictionary.com when I come across an unfamiliar one. But I think the first time I saw a Spivak pronoun, I mistook it for a typo.



> Besides, people will assume that any word you use _does_ exist because you used it. So they'll say "oh, this is a pronoun? maybe I should look it up!" and voila, mission accomplished.


Even if they did Google it or something, unless they specifically include the word "pronoun" in their search, "eirself" and "emself" are the only ones that actually return anything Spivak-related on the first page (unless you're counting a mention on a disambiguation page and a small "did you mean" link on a page about Norse mythology).

Personally, I think it's too much to hope that the average person would successfully look this up on the internet, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Negrek (Sep 30, 2008)

Uh, I  would just use the person's name for "___ enjoys running in the breeze," because if I'm referring to them in the first place I must know at least that, if I somehow know that the person enjoys running in the breeze without knowing what gender he or she is. Or, obviously, if I _do_ know the gender of the person to which the sentence is referring, I'll use the appropriate pronoun.

For formal writing I'll use "he or she" or "his or her;" I'm trying to break the they/their habit. On the internet the lack of a singular gender-neutral pronoun is a bit irritating, but in real life I pretty much always know the gender of the person I'm talking about so it's not something that really bothers me.


----------



## Zhorken (Sep 30, 2008)

All pronouns should be gender-neutral.


----------



## Negrek (Sep 30, 2008)

> All pronouns should be gender-neutral.


Why? What's the problem with gendered pronouns?


----------



## Zhorken (Sep 30, 2008)

Gender is no more special or important than any other mundane attribute and it's cleaner to consistently use gender-neutral pronouns instead of separate sets for "male", "female", and "neither/both/unspecific/I don't know/I don't care/whatever".

Though at least English isn't gross enough to assign every noun an arbitrary gender.

Original spivak is tastier than chop-off-the-"th" spivak.


----------



## Butterfree (Sep 30, 2008)

I generally dislike Spivak pronouns because so few people use them that they are very jarring when they are used.

I do pretty much any of the other options, though, depending on the situation. I'm generally more inclined to use singular "their" than "they" although I do use both, often in combination with "he or she" rather than filling the rest of the sentence with "he or she" and "his or her" every time it appears ("He or she may then rearrange their cards as they see fit"); this has the advantage of specifying the person to be singular before singular "they" is used, removing the possible ambiguity. Then when writing "he or she" would be decidedly awkward and the context is not right for "they", I must say I just tend to go with "he", while viewing it not as actually assuming the person is male but as literally a gender-neutral pronoun that happens to look the same as the male pronoun, which I honestly don't personally have any problem with, despite being a feminist.

I'm generally against the whole idea that language can discriminate, really. I'm a woman, and I don't feel at all excluded when I read a sentence using "he" for a person of ambiguous gender because it's really just a lingual tradition that we don't have to view as having anything to do with masculinity at all; I'm also an atheist, but I'm not offended when somebody wishes me a merry Christmas. Language should be viewed as an imperfect tool that gets a person's meaning across, not as something that can be offensive in itself when there is no offensive intention behind it. "A teacher must teach his student" means that people who are teachers must teach their students; "Merry Christmas" generally means that you hope the person you're talking to has a pleasant day and/or upcoming days during a public holiday and has very little to do with religion.


----------



## Negrek (Sep 30, 2008)

It's less efficient and leads to ambiguity, though. Take the sentence "Tom and Jen were fighting yesterday--he got mad at her for forgetting to lock the door again." There's not a lot of ambiguity in that. But compare to (just using "it" as a gender-neutral pronoun for the moment) "Tom and Jen were fighting yesterday--it got mad at it for forgetting to lock the door again." This sentence is one letter shorter than the preceding, but conveys much less information. Yes, you could replace the pronouns with the people's names in that situation, but that would sound awkward (at least by current convention) and the point of pronouns is to circumvent the need for that sort of thing.

Gendered nouns are a different story because they don't actually differentiate in that way.

Edit: This being in reply to Zhorken's post, obviously.


----------



## #1 bro (Sep 30, 2008)

I use they. "OH IT'S GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT". who gives a shit. I wouldn't use they as a singular third person pronoun in an essay or something, but in regular speech it's perfectly acceptable and everyone understands what you're talking about when you use it. 

and oh my god I hate it when people insist on using e/ey/eir (Spivak, I guess it's called). I mean, "Spivak" would be great if it was widely accepted, but it's _not_.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Oct 1, 2008)

I included 'one' because I thought there were people who used it. I know I sometimes use one. You know, "One can choose to do this/that". I don't really use it for anything other than that. As for they, some people would say 'they enjoy running' meaning a single person, which is why I included it as well.

The reason that I would like a gender neutral pronoun is because 'his or her' is long and unwieldly. I really just want a short thing that looks like a pronoun and refers to something that has an unspecified gender. Like, "I read in the news that some firefighter lost (possesive pronoun) ax." There are other cases that I can't recall at the moment. I do tend to use "his/her", his or her, or (s)he, but they don't flow well with the sentence. How in the world would you pronounce (s)he, anyway? I'm guessing that it's impossible.

I like 'hu' because I think people are less likely to mistake it for a typo than 'e' or 'ey'. I could be wrong, of course. Either way, spivak or hu are the only gender neutral pronouns I'd use, simply because things like 'sie' and 'ou' look nothing at all like pronouns and I'd probably have a much tougher time recognizing them as pronouns if I saw them in text as opposed to others.


----------



## Lady Grimdour (Oct 1, 2008)

He.

I consider it gender-neutral instead of masculine, really.


----------



## Old Catch (Oct 1, 2008)

I accidentally clicked 'she' but I use 'he' usually.


----------



## Eevee (Oct 1, 2008)

Having "he" be both ambiguous _and_ masculine rather defeats the purpose of having gendered pronouns in the first place.  It could be any of the three, _or_ it could be just one?  Why not just use "he" for everything, then?




Butterfree said:


> I generally dislike Spivak pronouns because so few people use them that they are very jarring when they are used.


Solution: use them!


----------



## opaltiger (Oct 1, 2008)

> and oh my god I hate it when people insist on using e/ey/eir (Spivak, I guess it's called). I mean, "Spivak" would be great if it was widely accepted, but it's not.


oh no, people use something in the hopes of increasing its use! how utterly bizarre.

seriously, with an attitude like that, how are we supposed to get anything done?


----------



## Eevee (Oct 1, 2008)

Ruby said:


> It is filthy, not clean, to use only gender-neutral pronouns.  In language you ought to draw as many distinctions as you possibly can - by using the most precise word - because each one lessens ambiguity.  The most precise word is the antecedent itself but, since we can not write 'Jane raised Jane's hand', the most precise word we can use is 'her'.


This is a bit self-contradictory.  Why, exactly, can't we do that?

There are languages where number, gender, pronouns, prepositions, and entire subjects are frequently omitted because they're redundant and a waste of everyone's time.



Ruby said:


> Because distinctions are good, and we should use the distinctions which we have.


If distinctions are good and you just said we should be as specific as possible, then why don't we get a distinct masculine pronoun?



Ruby said:


> I've already said that a pure gender-neutral pronoun would be helpful, if there were one in common use.


There won't BE one in common use if nobody uses them, and the only people capable of introducing new words are the people who already know they exist!



Ruby said:


> In general, it is bad to use words which the reader doesn't know, unless it is the only fitting word.


It's just a pronoun.  It's trivial to figure out from context.  I use Spivak all the time and I can't remember ever confusing anyone, just getting the occasional wtf.


----------



## Not Meowth (Oct 1, 2008)

Ruby said:


> You don't understand how to use 'one'.  'A teacher must teach one's student' is utterly wrong.  'One' means either 'a person' or 'the ideal person'.


Basically it's what people should use when they use "you" to mean "people in general" and not to refer to the individual they're addressing at the time =3


----------



## Eevee (Oct 1, 2008)

_every single neologism ever coined has been a deliberate addendum to the language_

including "neologism"

we need a word for something, so we create one.  since when is this a bad thing


----------



## Mirry (Oct 2, 2008)

I like "he", personally. Sometimes I use "one", but using "one" can come off sounding rather pretentious. Using "he/she" seems unnecessarily cumbersome. "They" shouldn't be used to refer to one person, hypothetical or no -- I always think of multiple persons when "they" is used.

I suppose "she" is just as legitimate a pronoun as "he", but "he" seems to be the more standard term so I prefer to use it. I don't think that using "he" means that I'm a proponent of a male-dominated society or something; I think that's reading a bit too much into the term.

So, in conclusion, "he" is simple, doesn't sound awkward like "one", is more common than "she", is less hassle to write than "he/she", and is more grammatically correct than "they".


----------



## EvilCrazyMonkey (Oct 2, 2008)

I like the Spivak pronouns because they seem much more natural to me.
But whatever.


----------



## OrangeAipom (Oct 2, 2008)

I like new Spivak because it's easier for me to remember for me than the original.


----------



## Worst Username Ever (Oct 2, 2008)

(S)he.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 2, 2008)

Ruby said:


> But One isn't interchangeable with He.  They mean two different things.


I think most people in this thread are aware of this, and are capable of using "one" correctly. It's just that in a lot of cases, it's possible to rewrite a sentence so that "one" can be used instead of a pronoun (although it would probably sound pretty awkward most of the time).


----------



## Sandstone-Shadow (Oct 2, 2008)

My English teachers have always told me that "The teacher teaches their student" would be incorrect, so I mainly use "he or she", "his or hers", or "him or her". I feel like this keeps it open; if I see something that uses "he", whether or not it was meant to be gender-neutral, I'm picturing a male. Same with "she". Informally I might use "they", "their", "them", etc.

I think a gender-neutral pronoun would be pretty nifty. =D I don't really like the Spivak one; it seems forced to me, but I do like the Hu one that someone had a link to in the first page.


----------



## OrangeAipom (Oct 3, 2008)

Worst Username Ever said:


> (S)he.


How do you pronounce that? I pronounce that shu-he.


----------



## Dewgong (Oct 3, 2008)

ArtificialFlavour said:


> How do you pronounce that? I pronounce that shu-he.


She or He. He or She. Either.


----------



## .GoreTuzk (Oct 5, 2008)

Music Dragon said:


> In Swedish, the word "human" is, in certain contexts, a feminine word (although very few people actually care). So you could argue that "she" could refer to any human being, not necessarily a male!
> 
> ... But, well, that's only in Sweden.


In portuguese, "pessoa" (person) is a feminine word.


----------



## Aobaru (Oct 6, 2008)

I use singular they or "he/she" or "he or she".

English is a overall horrible language, imo.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

Aobaru said:


> I use singular they or "he/she" or "he or she".
> 
> English is a overall horrible language, imo.


What! No, no, no! English is a wonderful language. It may be lacking in some departments, but it is so rich!


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

I wouldn't describe English as horrible, just lazy.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

Murkrow said:


> I wouldn't describe English as horrible, just lazy.


What, lazy? How so? If you want lazy, you should try... oh, say... Chinese. No verb conjugations, and adjectives come with a built-in _être_? Yes, please!


----------



## opaltiger (Oct 7, 2008)

English doesn't just borrow from other languages, it follows them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and searches their pockets for spare grammar.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

opaltiger said:


> English doesn't just borrow from other languages, it follows them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and searches their pockets for spare grammar.


But that's what makes it so varied and rich!


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

Music Dragon said:


> What, lazy? How so? If you want lazy, you should try... oh, say... Chinese. No verb conjugations, and adjectives come with a built-in _être_? Yes, please!


I never said I 'wanted' lazy.
I mainly meant lazy in the way it was invented.

Also, referring to practically everything that isn't alive as 'it' is very boring.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

Murkrow said:


> I never said I 'wanted' lazy.


And I didn't literally mean that you "wanted" lazy. You knew that, though, right?



Murkrow said:


> I mainly meant lazy in the way it was invented.
> 
> Also, referring to practically everything that isn't alive as 'it' is very boring


Why? I think it makes sense. Why should we have more pronouns than necessary?


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

Music Dragon said:


> And I didn't literally mean that you "wanted" lazy. You knew that, though, right?
> 
> 
> Why? I think it makes sense. Why should we have more pronouns than necessary?


English has more than necessary, 'he' and 'she' work just fine.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

Murkrow said:


> English has more than necessary, 'he' and 'she' work just fine.


It is much, much easier to have a pronoun for genderless things. Otherwise you'd have to assign a gender to every noun, and _that_ would be a pain.


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

Music Dragon said:


> It is much, much easier to have a pronoun for genderless things. Otherwise you'd have to assign a gender to every noun, and _that_ would be a pain.


A pain, yes, but when become good enough at certain languages, I'd call it having a 'sense' of the language, you just know which pronoun to use without looking it up. Usually it's the one that 'sounds' best to you.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

Murkrow said:


> A pain, yes, but when become good enough at certain languages, I'd call it having a 'sense' of the language, you just know which pronoun to use without looking it up. Usually it's the one that 'sounds' best to you.


Yes; this greatly limits non-native speakers like me. But I guess that's no concern of yours, you little... esotericist!

Oh, and by the way... This "sense" you speak of, it is what we call _språkörat_, the language ear. A true gift!


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

Too bad I'm terrible at languages. :(


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

If you're terrible at languages, I don't see why you'd want to make it more difficult to learn them.


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

Good point, I don't really want it to be more difficult, which is why I don't like all of the grammar rules in German.

IMO pronouns don't really make it all that harder.

With languages that you're learning as a first language, you're usually good enough to know which one to use. With second languages, they don't seem that important. I haven't done any essays yet or anything, so far it's just been writing something, the teacher marks it. I write it again, with corrections. I learn it all and have to write it out again with no help except my memory. Pronouns aren't that hard to learn when you think about it.


----------



## Music Dragon (Oct 7, 2008)

Murkrow said:


> With languages that you're learning as a first language, you're usually good enough to know which one to use. With second languages, they don't seem that important. I haven't done any essays yet or anything, so far it's just been writing something, the teacher marks it. I write it again, with corrections. I learn it all and have to write it out again with no help except my memory. Pronouns aren't that hard to learn when you think about it.


Yes, they are. Really, there are some things that only native speakers or very well-educated people can grasp completely; I, for example, never know what prepositions to use. (But apart from that, I think my English is quite acceptable!)


----------



## Murkrow (Oct 7, 2008)

Don't get me started on prepositions....


----------



## OrangeAipom (Oct 8, 2008)

Some prepositions are more "metaphorical" than others.


----------



## Ether's Bane (Oct 8, 2008)

I use 'he' or 'they'.


----------

